February 20, 2020

February 20, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 19, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 18, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Innovator Liability Theory Gets Traction in the Northern District of Illinois

In Dolan v. Smithkine Beecham Corp. (N.D. Ill 2014), Judge Zagel of the Northern District of Illinois just held that a brand name drug manufacturer could be liable for design and warning defects in a generic manufacturer’s product under Illinois law.  Prior to this case, the clear trend had been to reject claims based on “innovator liability,” because they violate a basic tenant of product liability law:  that the responsible party must have sold the injury causing product. 

In Dolan, the plaintiff claimed that her husband had committed suicide after ingesting paroxetine, a generic version of Paxil.  She sued Glaxosmithkline (“GSK”), the manufacturer of Paxil, under negligence and strict liability theories.  Dolan argued that GSK was responsible because the generic drug’s design and warnings were based on those of Paxil, as required by Federal Law.

The court entered summary judgment on the strict liability claims, but declined to dismiss the negligence claims.  In so doing, the court reasoned that because the generic drug design and warning label was legally required to be identical to the brand name, in fact GSK did design and label the generic drug.  The court noted that “nothing in Illinois common law compels a court to construe Plaintiff’s common law negligence claims as product liability claims.”  Additionally, it found that Illinois law did not limit negligence liability to those in the chain of distribution. 

Now the question is:  will innovator liability gain momentum in other jurisdictions, or will it be dismissed as a quirk of Illinois negligence law? 

© Copyright 2020 Armstrong Teasdale LLP. All rights reserved


About this Author

Armstrong Teasdale is committed to helping clients find the most effective and efficient path to a successful outcome for each unique business dispute.  In order to avoid the cost of litigation whenever possible, Armstrong Teasdale’s business litigation lawyers enjoy a well-earned reputation for identifying and aggressively pursuing alternate business dispute solutions to serve the clients’ best interests. But, when litigation is necessary, Armstrong Teasdale litigators have the depth of experience and skill necessary for  handling federal and state jury trials, bench...